A Successful Story of Reservoir Management

F08 – Integrated reservoir management and surveillance 21st World Petroleum Congress, Moscow 2014
A successful story of reservoir management

Silvia Vimercati, Eni E&P, Italy, silvia.vimercati@eni.com
Stefano Raniolo, Eni E&P, Italy, stefano.raniolo@eni.com
Pablo Gentil, EniPetroleum, USA, pablo.gentil@enipetroleum.com
Emanuele Vignati, Eni E&P, Italy, emanuele.vignati@eni.com
Hector Giraud, Eni E&P, Italy, hector.giraud@eni.com
Lucas Atencio, EniPetroleum, USA, lucas.atencio@enipetroleum.com
Abstract
An effective reservoir management is fundamental to better operate reservoirs and enhance recovery
throughout field life. It involves an overall knowledge of the oil and gas business with a special focus
in data acquisition and analysis, development strategies, reservoir and well model simulations.
This paper presents the experience of a successful reservoir management methodology applied to an
Eni asset in the North Slope of Alaska. This work has involved a multidisciplinary team consisting of
petroleum, reservoir and production engineers in head quarter and on the field.
An in-depth analysis has been performed to identify an efficient strategy for water injection manage-
ment focused on production optimization.
The methodology is based on an efficient data collection linked to an automated surveillance system.
It automatically performs customized analysis on daily basis, leading to new optimization opportuni -
ties. A greater attention has been given to the investigation of voidage replacement ratio for each in-
jector/producer system. This represents a fundamental step for planning an efficient water injection
management, highlighting area that need tailored actions. Fine tuning of each action has been per-
formed using a reservoir model updated with all the new available data i.e. new CPI interpretation,
PVT analysis, SCAL, tracers and production data. The model is continuously updated by an integrat -
ed team that involves the sedimentologist, the petrophysician, the geologist and the reservoir engineer.
Once the production optimization actions have been deployed on the field, a continuous surveillance
has been carried on through ongoing performance evaluations to assess the effective incremental oil
and the economic gain.
The proposed methodology is an example of a sound and robust reservoir management that was suc-
cessfully applied to a real field case giving an effective improvement in oil production.
Introduction
The main objective of reservoir management is to improve the profitability and economical recovery
of hydrocarbons [3,4]. A sound and robust reservoir management is based on an in-depth knowledge
of the reservoir and on a continuous production monitoring of field and wells parameters. These two
components enable a virtuous loop of diagnosis, action and feedback.
In this paper we have studied the issue of water flood surveillance for the reservoir management of
the Nikaitchuq field, an undersaturated viscous oil reservoir located in the North slope of Alaska. This
asset is being developed by parallel horizontal injectors and producers drilled by pairs, located side by
side. The viscous nature of the oil makes this field a challenging water flood project. Each well has
© World Petroleum Council

been completed with electrical submersible pump and water injection mechanism represents the main
drainage process for the field to support reservoir pressure and to drive the oil to the producer. Each
producer is typically supported by two flanking injectors, one for each side. Moreover, five injectors
in the field are equipped with fiber optic distributed temperature sensing with pressure and tempera -
ture gauges to monitoring and control injection profile. In addition, intelligent oil and water tracer
systems are installed in 5 producers located in different areas with the purpose to monitor oil and wa -
ter inflow distribution along the producing sections of the whole trajectory [1].
Given the development concept proposed, injection and production conformance along the laterals
was deemed an important key. Continuous and efficient monitoring is based on:
 Early identification of monitoring technologies throughout project development phases from
concept to execution;
 the use of available tools to investigate water injection support in the field (voidage replace -
ment ratio analysis, tracers, distributed temperature surveys...);
 an efficient data collection linked to an automated surveillance system;
 collaboration of an integrated team that involves geologist, petrophysicist, reservoir, petrole-
um and production engineers;
 continuous evaluation of field and wells performances.
The analysis in this paper is focused on the investigation of voidage replacement ratio (VRR) for the
field and for each injector-producer pattern. An efficient data gathering of production and injection
parameters is essential to carry out VRR calculation in each system. For each pattern, greater attention
has been dedicated to an in-depth analysis of volumes calculation and to the support of reservoir pres -
sure given by injection. In this way it has been possible to identify poorly or excessively supported ar-
eas in the field and focus reservoir management strategy to plan tailored actions in order to optimize
the production.
This paper is divided in four main sections. After a brief description of the field, the surveillance pro -
gram related to water injection is presented. The third part is dedicated to the methodology followed
for the optimization of water injection. Finally, the full field application is reported and two produc-
er-injector patterns are discussed in more details.

Field Overview
The Nikaitchuq field is located in the north slope of Alaska, in the Beaufort sea, at about 12 miles
from the NE of the Colville river delta, as shown in figure 1. Water depth is less than 20 ft.
Figure 1: Location of Nikaitchuq field in the North Slope of Alaska.
The field is composed by an onshore pad, Oliktok Point, and an offshore pad, Spy Island, shown in
figure 2.

Figure 2: Nikaitchuq field map. Oliktok Point area is

highlighted in light orange, Spy Island area is
highlighted in light blue.
The target reservoir is represented by the OA sands, that belongs to the Schared Bluff Formation
(Cretaceous) and is located at depths from 3000 ft to 5000 ft TVDSS. The thickness of the oil bearing
sand is about 30-35 ft thickness. The OA trap is structural and stratigraphic with the OWC at 4177 ft
TVDSS toward N-NE. The structure is a monocline gently dipping towards North East with some
normal faults North West – South East oriented (shown in the map in Figure 2). The OA reservoir
consists of four zones hydraulically communicating OA1, OA2, OA3 and OA4. The differentiation is
mainly sedimentological: OA1 and OA3 are more sandy zones associated to a more proximal deposi-
tional system, while OA2 and OA4 are characterized by predominance of thin laminated silty sand -
stones, associated to a more distal depositional system. Due to the low reservoir temperature (about
80°F), oil viscosity is high (90-200 cp) and oil density is between 16-20° API. The reservoir is charac-
terized by a low GOR (70-150 scf/stb).
Producers and injectors have been drilled on pairs, located side by side and completed with horizontal
drains, with length in the range of 4000 -10.000 ft. Producers and injectors undulate the four layers of
OA reservoir, and they are distributed in anti-phase to each other along the lateral. Each producer is
supported by two injectors, one for each side. Only outboard producers are supported by one injector
from one side. The spacing between wells is about 1200 ft. Except for the east area, the wells are ori-
ented in NW-SE to minimize effect of faulting and maximize producer-injector connectivity. An ex-
ample of a producer trajectory in OA sands is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Well trajectory of a typical producer that undulates the four layers of OA sands (green
yellow, yellow, orange and grey levels).
Due to the low energy of the oil, it has been necessary to complete producers with electrical sub-
mersible pump (ESP), used to artificially lift the fluid to the surface. Water injection was chosen as
the main drainage process. The water injected comes from the Ivishak formation, delivering hot water
at 175°F. Injectors are completed with inflow control device (ICD) in order to enhance homogeneous
injection along the borehole.
In Figure 4 typical completion sketches of Nikaitchuq producer and injector are shown.
Figure 4: completion sketch of a Nikaitchuq producer (left); completion sketch of a Nikaitchuq

injector (right).

The production startup was in January 2011, and the field is still in the development phase. By March
2014, 22 producers and 18 injectors have been drilled. The project plan foresees the drilling of at least
6 additional multilateral producers with the associated injectors and the work over to add the second
lateral to the existing wells.
Data collection
Available technologies applied on the field

Surveillance and reservoir management activities can be improved also on the basis of the deploy-
ment of different technologies applied on the field [4]. The results of these applications play an im-
portant role in surveillance providing a continuous update of well performances. Hereafter the two
tools applied in Nikaitchuq are presented.
Distributed Temperature Surveys (DTS) are installed on five injectors located in different areas of the
field. DTS technologies represent a huge advantage in reservoir monitoring because it provides a con-
tinuous update of well conformance. The main target of this tool is to investigate injection contribu-
tion in the different levels of the reservoir by means of temperature profile. Temperature profile is
measured for the whole well trajectory in terms of depth sampling (1 meter) and time sampling (~5
seconds). From the preliminary analysis of three temperature profiles acquired for OI07-04, OI11-01
and SI20-N4, no evident criticalities on downhole injection profile have been highlighted. The injec-
tion seems to be homogeneous in all the different permeable levels on the field. This information has
permitted to continue the development of the field without changing the configuration of injection
pattern. DTS technologies represents a huge advantage in reservoir monitoring because it provides a
continuous update of well conformance.
Another fundamental tool used to monitor production is represented by oil and water tracers systems
installed in the completion string of six producers on the field. Oil and water tracers are designed to
activate when exposed to the corresponding target fluid along the production sections located in the
producer borehole. An investigation of the contribution to the production of the different sectors of
the drain is essential to calibrate future producers design, considering the length of the horizontal
drain (4000 to 10.000 feet) and the different layers crossed by the well trajectory. Oil and water tracer
systems have been installed in eight locations in the well completion and are intended to monitor oil
and water production in the whole trajectory of the well. Analysis on data acquired from tracers in the
first five wells have highlighted that all the installed oil tracer systems have been detected, indicating
that the whole drain is contributing to the oil production. Due to the still low water cut at sampling
time, it is still premature to conduct a water source analysis [1].
Main well parameters for both injectors and producers are constantly monitored through a real time
data acquisition system (called RTD in this paper). Separator tests are frequently performed on pro-
ducers by means of a multiphase flow meter, also connected to the RTD network. The daily surveil-
lance on ESP is operated by monitoring motor status (current, frequency and motor temperature) and
surface and downhole parameters (tubing head pressure, pump intake and discharge pressure, pump
vibration).
Integrated Surveillance system

One of the most important key point for a robust reservoir management is founded on an efficient data
collection. In the technical literature, it is often stated that an integrated surveillance system enhances
the technical analysis, facilitating the identification of new optimization opportunities [2, 4, 7].

The methodology described in this paper is based on an integrated surveillance system that allows to
collect in a unique and organized environment all data coming from different sources. The data inte-
gration allows a better identification of the reservoir properties and a more accurate prediction of
reservoir performance leading to optimal hydrocarbon recovery. It is also possible to perform custom-
ized analysis on daily basis, offering a complete and updated panoramic view of field and wells per-
formance over time. As an example, data are collected in real time for all producers ESP: this allows
to perform an analysis of pump health status allowing well-timed intervention.
For the Nikaitchuq field, the following data have been included in the optimization study of water in -
jection:
1. production test data from multiphase flow meters: flow rates, pressures and duration of the
test;
2. flow rate allocated for each well on the basis of separator test data and field production;
3. well operating parameters: pressures, temperature and ESP parameters;
4. Injection parameters: injection rates, well head pressure and temperature.
Overall ESP frequency and pump intake pressure are fundamental for this analysis in order to control
the trend of bottom hole pressure by adjusting the ESP working point. Moreover, the surveillance sys -
tem allows to implement automated workflow in order to manage special calculation as voidage re-
placement ratio.
The automated surveillance system has been specifically developed and tailored for the specific needs
of the Nikaitchuq field, using the software One Virtual Source (OVS Group).
Methodology
In this workflow, the most useful tool used for water injection analysis is the voidage replacement ra-
tio (VRR). The purpose of VRR is to give an indication of reservoir energy analyzing the balance be -
tween produced and injected fluids in the reservoir. Water injection is used as a means for pressure
maintenance to re-energize the reservoir after fluids production. VRR is defined as the ratio of inject-
ed fluids at reservoir condition to produced fluids at reservoir condition. Mathematically, it can be ex-
pressed as:
where Qw, Qo and Qg are water, oil and gas produced rates; Bo, Bw and Bg are the formation volume
factors for the three phases; GOR is the produced gas-oil ratio and Rs is the solution gas.
Water flooding analysis has been performed on VRR investigation by means of instantaneous VRR,
monthly average VRR and cumulative VRR. Instantaneous VRR gives a snapshot of the voidage situ-
ation in a specific instant of time. If the instantaneous VRR is equal to or greater than 1.0, the reser -
voir pressure is being maintained or increased. If the ratio is less than 1.0, reservoir pressure declines.
Cumulative VRR is calculated using cumulative injected and produced fluids at reservoir condition. It
represents the trend from time zero (commencement of production/injection in the pattern) to the cur-
rent situation with the most updated available data. As long as cumulative VRR is equal to or greater
than 1.0, reservoir pressure since the start of water injection will be maintained or increased.

In the methodology described, a quick look of voidage replacement at field level is performed: it is
constantly monitored to verify the general behavior of the field. In figure 5 the trend of field VRR is
shown. It can be noticed that, from the second half of 2013, the water injected has been greatly in -
creased due to a higher water availability that leads to the replacing of the produced volumes. Cumu-
lative VRR is actually at slightly lower than 1 rb/rb.
Figure 5: Field voidage replacement. Upper panel: production (green) and injection (blue)
rates at reservoir volume. Bottom panel: Instantaneous VRR (red) and cumulative VRR
(black).
Moreover, it is not possible to extrapolate details for single patterns from field VRR. For this reason,
voidage replacement ratio analysis has been performed mainly on producer-injector patterns and it is
used as a guideline for a better understanding of water injection support in the field [9]. The daily fol-
low up of the water injection is focused on analyzing injectors behavior and potentialities. The field
has been partitioned in the two pads: Oliktok Point Pad and Spy Island Pad. Spy Island pad is actually
on development, since some injectors and producers are not drilled yet and some producers are not yet
fully supported by injection. For this reason, the analysis is mainly focused on the patterns of Oliktok
point area where all wells have been drilled and each producer is supported by its associated injectors.
Given that wells in Oliktok Point area are distributed in parallel side by side, the identification of pat -
terns as producer-injector pairs, at a first glance, is straightforward. In this area, starting from the
south west part of the field, 9 patterns have been considered (see table 1 and figure 6).

Table 1: injectors and associated producers in Oliktok Point area.

Injectors Associated Producers
OI20-07 OP16-P03
OI24-08 OP17-P02, OP18-08
OI13-03 OP17-P02, OP10-P09
OP-I2 (inj) OP17-P02, OP12-P01
OI11-01 OP12-P01, OP08-P04
OI15-S4 OP10-P09, OP14-S3
SI29-S2 OP14-S3, OP09-S1
OI07-04 OP08-P04, OP04-P07, OP03-P05
OI06-05 OP03-P05, OP05-P06
Figure 6: map of injector-producer patterns in Oliktok Point area.
A key element of water injection surveillance is the identification of the connectivity between injec -
tors and producers. A suitable tool to study the links between wells is the streamline simulation [5].
This approach allows to compute the flow trajectories and to quantify the volume of water that travels
along each flow line. Streamline based flow simulation gives a quantification of phases fluxes be-
tween wells pair. The simulated phase, originated from an injector I and arriving to a producer P, is
the result of transport equations along each streamline during flow simulation. Streamlines simulation
is able to quantify and visualize reservoir flow that results from well positions and rates, geological
description and continuity, fluid properties, relative permeability and overall on the history matched
reservoir model. At any instant of time, according to the reservoir model, streamlines offer a snapshot
of how the reservoir is connected and how much fluid is allocated between producers and injectors.
The bundle of streamlines that connects injector to producers is collapsed in a single straight line: its
thickness is proportional to the connection strength and quantitative expressed by the Well Allocation

Factor (WAF) [5]. WAFs have been introduced to assess, in a quantitative way, the connectivity be-
tween injectors and producers. These factors are associated to a specific producer-injector pair and
can be defined both from producer point of view and from injector point of view. In this analysis we
will focus on WAF centered on injectors, so that WAF expresses how much flow at a producer is
caused by the associated injector [5], [10].
In the methodology described ,WAFs have been estimated from a streamlines simulation, that is used
to investigate the interaction between producers and injectors and to determine the weight of these in-
teractions. In Figure 7 the pattern of injector OI15-S4 is shown: streamlines connect this injector to
the associated producers OP10-P09 and OP14-S3.
Figure 7: streamlines for pattern of injector OI15-S4. OI15-S4 supports

OP10-P09 and OP14-S3 with WAF respectively of 57% and 39%.
WAFs extrapolated from the streamlines simulation have been used as input in the automatic calcula-
tion of VRR for each pattern over time. WAF are updated in time when important changes in pattern
configuration occur (i.e. new drilled wells, workover…), otherwise they have been maintained con-
stant [10].
Assuming that no aquifer influx is present, the connection between the reservoir pressure and the
voidage replacement ratio of the pattern is straightforward. Based on the investigation of the VRR of
a particular pattern, the reservoir pressure of producers is estimated evaluating bottom hole pressure
trend and liquid production whenever ESP frequency is constant. The reservoir pressure is evaluated
according to the PI relationship of the well, assuming that no skin damage is developing in the analy -
sis period. The patterns where the cumulative VRR is less than one highlight areas where water injec-
tion mechanism is not supporting enough the pressure and consequently the production. For these pat-
terns, tailored actions have been scheduled in order to optimize injection strategy.

Application
Optimization of injection strategy

On the basis of the cumulative VRR of each single pattern and the consequent evaluation of the reser-
voir pressure, the injection strategy has been revised and improved. For each injector, a new target
rate has been identified to improve pressure support on producers focusing on the patterns that needed
tailored actions. In order to design an efficient optimization plan, the following constraints have been
considered.
1. Water availability. Only two wells provide injection water until August 2013, when a
third water source well was drilled. Before the startup of the new water source, the opti -
mization focused on patterns with the lower cumulative VRR. After August 2013 engi-
neered VRR targets for each pattern were achievable resulting in a more aggressive in-
crease of water injected at field level.
2. Fracturing pressure. Well head pressure of injectors has been monitored to avoid fractur-
ing.
3. Status of associated producers has been evaluated in terms of water cut, GOR issues,
high viscous oil and ESP issues.
On the bases of these assumptions, a detailed program of injection optimization has been scheduled
for each injector. Injection rate has been increased stepwise to avoid a great increase in well head
pressure that could lead to fracturing [11].
If no criticalities are highlighted, injection rate is further increased till reaching the target proposed in
the optimization plan aimed to improve pressure support on producers. An example of injection rate
increase is shown in figure 8. From March till August 2013 injection rate has been increased by step
of 50-100 bbl/d (except for some period where it was mandatory to decrease injection rate due to sur -
face facilities issues). In the second half of 2013 the enhancement in water injection rate has been
more aggressive due to higher water availability.

Figure 8: injection data for OI13-03. Injection rate (blue) and well head pressure (red).
Evaluation of potential gain in oil production

Likewise, once producers see the increase in pressure support, their production can be enhanced by
increasing the ESP frequency. A preliminary estimation of a potential gain in oil production has been
performed by means of reservoir and wells models.
The impact of water injection on reservoir pressure has been estimated by means of a dynamic reser-
voir model. A sector model of the Oliktok Pont area has been history matched according to the last
production data. The proposed action on each injector has been studied to verify the impact on the in -
jection pressure, water breakthrough and GOR. The producers have been simulated under bottom hole
pressure control as in the real field management. As an example, figure 9 reports the production sensi-
tivity plot for well OP10-09 and figure 10 reports injection parameters for OI15-S4. Figure 9 displays
historical data and the results of the simulation of the real field management and the simulation with
the enhanced water injection campaign for OP10-P09 oil rate, water cut, bottom hole pressure and
GOR. It can be noticed that the injection optimization strategy leads to a significant increase in oil
production and a slightly increase in water cut. Both simulations have been performed with bottom
hole pressure control, so that it remains constant during all the simulation. Figure 10 displays the step-
wise increase of water injection rate for OI15-S4 and the increase of injector bottom hole pressure due
to the enhanced water injection campaign.

Figure 9: results simulation for well OP10-P09 for oil rate, water cut, bottom hole pressure
and GOR. Comparison between the real field management (green), the enhanced water
injection campaign (blue) and historical data (black dots).

Figure 10: results simulation for injector OI15-S4 for injection rate and bottom hole pressure.
Comparison between the real field management (green), the enhanced water injection campaign
(blue) and historical data (black dots).
Prediction results of the sector model have been used to study the expected impact on reservoir pres-
sure for each pattern. Figure 11 displays the static pressure resulting from the simulation of the real
field management and from the simulation of the water injection optimization. It can be noticed the
increase in reservoir pressure for the pattern of OP10-P09 due to the enhanced water injection cam-
paign. The increase in oil production computed by the reservoir model has been revised by means of
well model where the optimal setting of the ESP frequency can be evaluated.

Figure 11: results simulation for well OP10-P09 for static pressure. Comparison between
the real field management (green), the enhanced water injection campaign (blue) and
historical data (black dots).
Sensitivities have been performed by means of continuously updated well nodal analysis models. The
aim is to evaluate the effect of ESP frequency increases taking into account the increment of reservoir
pressure estimated with the reservoir model. Well model sensitivities have been performed on the ba-
sis of the following assumptions.
 For the 5 wells included in the sector model, the increment of static reservoir pressure esti-
mated by the reservoir simulation has been used as the maximum increment in pressure due
to injection support. For the other wells an average increment has been evaluated according
to historical pressure trend.
 Initially, the frequency has been increased by step of 0.5 Hz according to historical variation.
Producer performances have been evaluated after the first increase and, if no criticalities have
been remarked, further and greater steps have been applied.
 WCT has been increased on the basis of simulation sensitivities results or analyzing historical
water cut trend.

Results of optimization strategy

A first estimation in field oil production has been performed taking into account minimal increase in
ESP frequency for producers, represented by step of 0.5 Hz. A total oil enhancement, given by all pro-
ducers involved in this analysis, is around 8%, respect the total production in March 2013.
Based on the findings related to the application of the first step of the optimization strategy, several
refinements have been applied. The observed behaviors are hereafter reported.
 ESP frequency increase: a preventive step of 0.5 Hz was performed; in second analysis also
steps of 2-3 Hz have been considered.
 Well bottom hole pressure trend: neglecting the influence of ESP frequency steps, bottom
hole pressure has remained constant or has slightly increased. This points out that injection is
continuously re-pressurizing the area in spite of greater produced volumes.
 Water availability: increase water injection availability due to the new water source well.
A second evaluation of potential oil gain has been performed allowing a greater increase of ESP fre -
quency. Field oil production enhancement is estimated around 15%, respect to the total field produc-
tion in March 2013.
These two estimations of potential oil gain have been compared with the real gain in oil production
due to the deployment of the optimization actions in the field. The real oil gain has been calculated
considering only the contribution of water optimization strategy, neglecting the contribution of new
multilateral wells and other actions on existing wells performed in the last quarter of the year. The oil
enhancement is around 17%, respect to the field production at March 2013.
The evaluation carried out with the reservoir and wells model sensitivities, revised on the basis of
field response to the preliminary optimization actions deployed, differs only of 2% from the real gain
obtained in field production.
Hereafter two examples of pattern optimization are reported.
Example 1: producer OP09-S1

OP09-S1 is located in the western part of the Oliktok Point area, highlighted in figure 12. The pattern
is composed by injector SI29-S2 and producers OP09-S1 and OP14-S3. OP09-S1 is an outboard pro-
ducer and it is supported by one injector. As described in the methodology section, WAF for OP09-S1
has been estimated by means of streamlines simulation: 90% of its production is due to injector SI29-
S2.

Figure 12: producer OP09-S1 location in the field.
Instantaneous and cumulative voidage replacement ratio have been automatically calculated in the in-
tegrated surveillance system for SI29-S2 pattern involving both producers. The results are shown in
figure 13.
Figure 13: voidage replacement for SI29-S2 pattern. Upper panel: production (green) and injection
(blue) rates at reservoir volume. Bottom panel: Instantaneous VRR (red) and cumulative VRR (black).

Injection and production rates at reservoir condition are plotted for this pattern in the upper panel of
the graph. In the bottom panel instantaneous VRR and cumulative VRR are reported. Up to March
2013, instantaneous VRR is quite constant slightly over 1 rb/rb. Since September 2013, workover for
multilateral for OP14-S3 and for OP09-S1 have been performed: instantaneous VRR is affected by
producers shut in during the workover. Cumulative VRR is slightly increasing to replace the produced
volumes and, at March 2013 when the analysis has been performed, is certainly lower than 1. Given
that cumulative VRR is less than 1, injection rate has been slightly increased to improve reservoir
pressure support (except for some period where it was mandatory decreasing it due to surface facili-
ties constrains). In figure 14 the performance of producer OP09-S1 is shown.
Figure 14: performance of OP09-S1. Upper panel: production data (green) and bottom hole pressure
(purple). Bottom panel: ESP frequency (dash black), water cut (blue) and GOR (red) data.
Production and bottom hole pressure are reported in the upper panel; ESP frequency, water cut and
GOR are reported in the bottom panel. From July 2012 to May 2013 ESP frequency was constant due
to a motor temperature issue of the ESP. The support of injection is highlighted by the increase of the
bottom hole pressure in this timeframe that corresponds to reservoir re-pressurization. As the injected
water in SI29-S2 has been increased, ESP frequency has been also raised. A step of 3 Hz has been
performed in June 2013: oil production increased till December 2013 when OP09-S1 has been shut in
for the work over to add the second lateral in OA sand. Comparing oil production before and after the
ESP frequency increase in June 2013, the associated enhancement in oil rate is about 20%. After this
ESP frequency increase, the bottom hole pressure is decreased of about 70 psi, without any impact on
GOR and water cut, and then it has remained constant indicating that injection is continuously sup-
porting the area.

Example 2: producer OP10-P09

OP10-P09 is located in the central part Oliktok Point area, as shown in figure 15. OP10-P09 is sup-
ported by injectors OI13-03 and OI15-S4.
Figure 15: producer OP10-P09 location in the field.
In order to quantify the contribution of these injectors on OP10-P09 production, WAFs have been ex-
trapolated from streamlines simulation: 30% of its production is due to injector OI13-03, and the re -
maining 70% is due to injector OI15-S4. Instantaneous and cumulative voidage replacement for both
injectors have been automatically performed and are shown in figure 16 and figure 17. The injected
and produced volumes and cumulative are plotted at reservoir condition in the upper panel; in the bot -
tom panel instantaneous and cumulative VRR are reported.

Figure 16: voidage replacement for OI13-03 pattern. Upper panel: production (green) and injection

Figure 17: voidage replacement for OI15-S4 pattern. Upper panel: production (green) and injection
Instantaneous VRR for OI13-03 in 2013 has slightly increased over 1 in order to re-pressurize the pat-
tern. Cumulative VRR is increasing and it is approaching to 1, suggesting that reservoir pressure in
this pattern is constant or is increasing due to injection support. For OI15-S4, instantaneous VRR is
maintained around 1 during 2013. The cumulative VRR is increasing, but far away from replacing the
produced volume (up to the end of 2013 is lower than 1 rb/rb). In November 2013 OP10-P09 has
been shut in to perform the workover to add the second lateral in OA sand. OP10-P09 performance is
reported in figure 18. Production and bottom hole pressure are reported in the upper panel; ESP fre-
quency, water cut and GOR are reported in the bottom panel.

Figure 18: performance of OP10-P09. Upper panel: production data (green) and bottom hole
pressure (purple). Bottom panel: ESP frequency (dash black), water cut (blue) and GOR (red) data.
After the water injected increase in both injectors, ESP frequency in OP10-P09 has been increased in
3 main steps of 2 Hz each. The first step has been performed in December 2012, the second in April
2013 and the last in September 2013. It is worthwhile to notice that after each ESP frequency in -
crease, the bottom hole pressure immediately decreases and then it remains constant or slightly in-
creases: the injection support is re-pressuring the area in spite of the production increasing. The oil
production enhancement associated to these optimization actions on OP10-P09 is about 50%.
Conclusions
In this paper a successful reservoir management methodology focused on water injection has been
presented for a field case in the North Slope of Alaska. A well-known methodology, i.e. voidage re -
placement ratio analysis, has been implemented within an innovative surveillance environment, i.e.
automated surveillance system, bringing forth an effective water injection optimization. This analysis
has been performed thanks to the cooperation of multidisciplinary team as reservoir, petroleum and
production engineer in the head quarter and on the field. The methodology described represents an ef-
fective approach in the way to monitor and optimize a producing asset.
Given that the field considered continues to evolve in terms of new producers and injectors drilled,
work over to add a second lateral for the existing wells, changing of ESP and optimization actions, a
continuous surveillance of ongoing performance is worthwhile. Main benefits can be obtained with a
constant monitoring of field and well parameters aimed at a continuous optimization of reservoir
management strategy. It is worthwhile to notice that a robust reservoir management should be contin-
uously updated and optimization actions should be fine-tuned on the basis of field development.

The applied methodology is based on the investigation of voidage replacement ratio at pattern level,
automatically calculated by means of an efficient integrated surveillance system provided for field
and all well available data. A detailed analysis has been performed for all the patterns in Oliktok Point
area in order to identify critical areas that needed tailored actions leading to new production optimiza-
tion opportunities. This represents a fundamental step for planning an efficient water injection man-
agement. Each optimization action proposed has been validated by means of the reservoir and wells
model periodically updated with all available data. The application of the methodology described has
led to an oil enhancement of 17% respect to the production at March 2013, due to the production opti-
mization actions successfully deployed in the field. Although the production displayed an additional
2% increase to our estimation, there is a fairly good agreement with the results estimated with the pro-
posed methodology.
The proposed approach shows a sound and robust reservoir management that was successfully
applied to a real field case giving an effective improvement in oil production.
References
1. <Kuck M. D., Nofziger L., Gentil P.>.<2014> “<Production monitoring by intelligent chemi-
cal inflow tracers in long horizontal wells for the Nikaitchuq field, northern Alaska
>”.<IPTC, International Petroleum Technology Conference>. <Doha, Qatar>. <IPTC 17458>
2. <Vignati E., Castelnuovo L., Gonzales F.>.<2013> “<From field to desk: automated field
surveillance for reservoir management>”.<IPTC, International Petroleum Technology Con-
ference>. <Beijing, China>. <IPTC 16878>
3. <Abu El Ela M., SPE, Cairo U. >.<2007> “<Data analysis methodology for reservoir man -
agement>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>. <London, United Kingdom>. <SPE
106899>
4. <Ezekwe J.N., Devon Energy Corporation >.<2003> “<Applied reservoir management prin-
ciples with case histories>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>.<Denver, USA>. <SPE
84148>
5. <Thiele M., Batycky R.>.<2006> “<Using streamline-derived injection efficiens for im-
proved waterflood management >”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>. <Denver, USA>.
<SPE 84080>
6. <Simon A. D., Petersen E.J.>.<1997> “<Reservoir management of the Prudhoe Bay
field>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>. <San Antonio, USA>. <SPE 38847>
7. <Thakur G. C.>.<1991> “<Waterflood surveillance techniques – a reservoir management ap-
proach>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>. <SPE 23471>
8. <Svirsky D., Hagelaars A., Zegwaard J., Mackay H., Salym Petroleum Departement N.
V.>.<2006> “<Reservoir management of west Salym oil field>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum
Engineer>.<Moscow, Russia>. <SPE 101863>
9. <Stenger B. A., Al Katheeri A. B., Hafez H.H., Al-Kendi S.A.>.<2009> “<Short-term and
long-term aspects of water injection strategy>”.<SPE, Society Of Petroleum Engineer>.<Abu
Dhabi, UAE>. <SPE 116989>
10. <Gladkov A., Kondakov D., Gareev R., Belyanushkina M., Lvov A., Arsenevsky I.>.<2013>
“<Streamlines for the target injection calculation in complex field conditions>”.<SPE, Soci-
ety Of Petroleum Engineer>.<Moscow, Russia>. <SPE 166874>
11. <Baker R.>.<1997> “<Reservoir Management for water flood>”.<JPTC, journal of Canadi-
an Petroleum Technology>. <Petroleum society of Canada>.

A Successful Story of Reservoir Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Successful Story of Reservoir Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F08 – Integrated reservoir management and surveillance 21st World Petroleum Congress, Moscow 2014

A successful story of reservoir management

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 1: Location of Nikaitchuq field in the North Slope of Alaska.

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 2: Nikaitchuq field map. Oliktok Point area is

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 4: completion sketch of a Nikaitchuq producer (left); completion sketch of a Nikaitchuq

© World Petroleum Council

Available technologies applied on the field

Integrated Surveillance system

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

Table 1: injectors and associated producers in Oliktok Point area.

Figure 6: map of injector-producer patterns in Oliktok Point area.

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 7: streamlines for pattern of injector OI15-S4. OI15-S4 supports

© World Petroleum Council

Optimization of injection strategy

© World Petroleum Council

Evaluation of potential gain in oil production

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

Results of optimization strategy

Example 1: producer OP09-S1

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 12: producer OP09-S1 location in the field.

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

Example 2: producer OP10-P09

Figure 15: producer OP10-P09 location in the field.

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

You might also like